Yes it is about doing things in an uniquely Australian way.

No Dick, it's not, it is about knowing how the system works. You can contact any of the Class D towers without a plan and land in or transit the zone.

The Class C towers do not have any airspace, it belongs to the TCU, however, if you contact the tower at one of the VFR points and request a clearance the tower can often get an airspace release and get you through the zone (Sydney excepted). You may not get direct. It costs too much to land in the capital city primaries. You can even contact Essendon tower at Kalkallo and, depending on traffic approaching RWY 27 at Melbourne, get a clearance direct to Essendon without contacting ML TWR or TCU.

I have transited Williamtown and Brisbane zones without any problems. Once when tracking coastal south past Gold Coast without a plan, just a pop up, the weather turned bad. I requested a landing at Gold Coast and got it.

Maybe students need to be taught how to do a pop up as well as the required flight plan submission.

Why don't the class C towers in Aus have tower airspace to the first step like they do in other leading aviation countries?

I know. We are better and brighter than the overseas dopes.

Not really. It's just that most in Aus reject copying the best. When I was CAA chairman we sent ATCs to the US to let them see how it worked. Lots came back with ideas on how we could improve things here but change rarely happened.

It's so sad to see our GA industry being destroyed.

So Dick, I am young and foolish enough to believe that change is possible.

Obviously lobbying politicians is a blunt instrument because a) most wouldn't understand it b) these issues have narrow, not wide appeal (and therefore narrow voter base) c) by doing anything they risk attracting the ire of other government departments and related organisations like the military

So, what about we create a clear plan for what Williamtown airspace should look like, and propose the solution?

I'm not familiar with airspace planning/requirements, but plenty of us are. As an end user, a williamtown airspace that one could plan through and expect clearance through a number of routes would do the trick. Maybe re-portion the restricted areas would be a good trade-off.

We do make some of it up as needed - pick a departure point somewhere behind you. The point is we have to enter all those details to get a flight plan flying. The computer says "no" otherwise.

It is part of what I'm paid for but I'm just telling you the way it is - TAAATS has a lot of smarts but it needs to be fed the information to work with. Someone has to feed the elephant with a flight plan.

I can't speak about the RAAF system but certainly for TAAATS if you file a plan a delay in receiving a clearance is less likely.

Le p. Have you ever asked a US controller how they can handle 30 times the number of aircraft without these problems?

Do you have a thorough understanding of how the systems work in other countries? Have you ever wondered if there may be a better way of doing something?

Yes. I realise it's probably the bosses job to know these things but love to know what enquiries you have made.

Dick, stop making up numbers. You say a US ATC handles thirty times more aircraft. Do you think that where an Australian ATC may have ten aircraft on frequency, a US one would have 300? An enroute controller's screen would be so cluttered nothing could be done. This is the case world wide, one person has only so much capacity. As for your proposition that Australia has a 1930's system. In the 30's many aircraft didn't have radio, communication was via morse code and light signals, navaids were almost non existent and there was no flight watch until after the Kyeema crash. Stop the hyperbole and stick to facts. Maybe a trip to the Airways Museum at Essendon may help.

He's going to fit right in with the pollies if he gets elected, anyway.

Problems like separation. Didn't the US just put a F16 and a lighty together? :ugh:

Oh no! An accident!

We must redouble our efforts to make the world risk-free, by imposing more regulations and restrictions. :ugh:

Oh no an accident. Demonstrates horribly that the US system isn't the perfection sent from above that Dick et al claim.

So a US controller can handle 600 aircraft can they? You really are a so blind and clueless, it would be funny if you weren't so serious :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

The US has approximately 60 million movements a year and 15000 controllers (from faa.gov). Australia has approximately 4 million movements and 1000 controllers (from airservicesaustralia.com).

My calculator works out that if every single movement was provided some sort of service the ATC in both countries astoundingly works 4000 movements a year. Can't work out where I am losing the 116000 other movements for the hyper efficient US controllers.

There is no perfect system, Le P, and neither Dick nor anyone else is saying there is, so far as I can tell.

Your post is, disappointingly, a manifestation of the fearmongering that leads to the justifications of mitigations that aren't justified by the risks. I realise that's great from the perspective of people who make their livelihoods out of scaring the bejesus out of credulous punters, but please don't insult the intelligence of those who aren't. We all know how many incidents have occurred in Australia's 'perfect' air traffic control system that have been a coin toss away from a disaster.

Awol57, the USA has many more towered airports and more flights in controlled airspace by GA than Australia, it seems.

(Not having flown there, I can't actually assess the validity of this claim.)

LB, Dick et al are very quick to point out the flaws as they see therm here and the wonders of the US system, but never seem to mention the downsides to the US system. It was my amateur attempt at returning the favour of sensationalism that Dick seems so fond of - he's very much better at it than me.

Would you mind do the favour of telling this to Dick as well: "I realise that's great from the perspective of people who make their livelihoods out of scaring the bejesus out of credulous punters, but please don't insult the intelligence of those who aren't." Seems to fit rather well.

I get that, they also have a lot more controllers and a lot more aircraft etc etc.

I don't know how exactly each organisation determines their movements but the fact remains that the figures based on annual numbers each ATC does about the same amount of movements.

I have no doubt there would be some movements within each country that are unaccounted but I highly doubt those unaccounted movements would equate to 30 times the traffic per controller.

Don't appear to any such problems at Amberley... ?

VFR aircraft asking for transit cnce call ACD with request and details....

Still more than their share of penetrations!

Le Ping,
And, pray tell, for all levels of aviation, and compared to Australia, just what would those downsides be?? Have you ever flown their airspace, as a pilot??
Every GA pilot from AU, to whom I have ever spoken, after their first flying experiences in US, find it a complete revelation, a joy, compared to flying in Australia.
Not just the FAA service with a smile, or the FAA ATC, but the whole deal.
A friendly atmosphere at all levels, compared to what I would call a possessive aggressive atmosphere here.
Not to mention the inconvenience of the vast swathes of military restricted airspace in Australia, that simply do not exist in US. Must be something to do with their minuscule Air Force, Naval Air and Marines, compared to our vast military establishment
Whether in RPT or non-scheduled heavies, or just small aircraft, I have never, in about 50 years, found a downside, compared to Australia, and many upsides.
Tootle pip!!

One substantial downsides of trying to import the US ATC system to Australia is that they have approximately 10 times the population of Australia but approximately the same land mass. They have lots more ATCers managing much smaller sectors.

But it's just a political decision, not a safety decision, to fund more aviation infrastructure. And if all the blah blah blah about being an "innovation nation" was anything more than empty rhetoric, we'd be encouraging general aviation rather than regulating it to death, charging it to death and stuffing it around to death.

La P: I agree. Dick's scaremongering is inexcusable. I suppose he's just trying to leverage off the mystique of aviation like the scaremongers in comfy sinecures in the regulator and ANSP. "Fire with fire" and all that. Perhaps we should get an RFFS to hose him down? :}

Yes: we must "ensure no accidents".

Another one almost completely disconnected from the real world.

Edited to add: What happened to your post from which I quoted, Pera?

LS, the cost in introducing a different system - ATC training isn't cheap.How many millions have been spent already? The risk involved in transitioning from one system to another - e.g. the AIRPROX near Launceston.

I'd like to see you sell the mixing of high cap RPT with uncontrolled VFR to the general public. I doubt the fare paying public would be happy about it. Why would the taxpaying public think the unnecessary mixing of fast jets and VFR a good thing - risking expensive jets and lives of expensively trained pilots for the convenience of "rich boys and their toys"?